If There is No Gold for Barber Option...

Ravinsild · June 2016

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

ShedsHisTail · June 2016

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Ravinsild · June 2016

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Correct. MMOs that didn't fail and have to go buy-to-play + rely on a predatory mobile-phone game or League of Legends-like payment model to poach every nickle and dime they can WHILE still offering a subscription (even if it is optional).

ShedsHisTail · June 2016

Ravinsild wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Correct. MMOs that didn't fail and have to go buy-to-play + rely on a predatory mobile-phone game or League of Legends-like payment model to poach every nickle and dime they can WHILE still offering a subscription (even if it is optional).

So, you're saying ZOS should return to a subscription-only model so we can have these sorts of things at no additional cost?

Tangentially Related: I don't think ZOS's decision to go subscription optional had anything to do with the game "failing". I think they realized that a huge population of Elder Scrolls fans were fans of the single-player games which don't require subscriptions and it was hard convincing them to subscribe; so by going subscription optional, they were able to scoop up a bigger chunk of the fan base. You don't have to fail to want more.

Lysette · June 2016

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

CromulentForumID wrote: »

razzle1184kicks wrote: »

Agree with paying, like they need to cover the cost of implementing it right?

Or as mentioned I could just create a new character for free.

I would be much more OK with that reasoning if they actually added locations and NPCs to the game world. The current implementation doesn't seem to support the need for a crowns-only implementation.

I could very well be wrong, I'll admit. Someone who knows game development would need to weigh in. Does the kind of interface development needed to implement the feature as it is now actually cost more, or at least as much as, adding locations and NPCs to the game world?

Count me on the side of those who think options available in the base game should cost in-game gold, and then any new or premium options should cost crowns.

Name change and race change I believe should cost crowns, and more than just a couple.

Name change? - what is basically just a data-base query if that name is already in existence or not?- Now give me a break.

A character name is an identifying feature. A player could do all sorts of griefing or trolling, then use a name change to try to avoid the reprisal. Increasing the cost a bit prevents this from being "too easy" of a tactic.

I am not sure how visible the account names are on PC, so maybe this is moot. I know on console you only get an account name unless you change some of the recent settings.

Character name changes costing more is a lot more about player behavior than it is about the development cost. Plus, names are probably tied to more account and character attributes, so it's not just a query. For example, if there are any leaderboard displays that show a character name, those displays need to be updated when the name changes. I never look at leaderboards, so it's possible that is a bad example. But the point remains, it's more than just looking up to see if the name already exists.

if the database is normalized, this does not have to be changed everywhere - because the effective name is not in those tables, but just a reference (a 128-bit UUID normally) to the account or character data. Just if the database is not normalized and done by pseudo-professionals, then this would be like you said - but in a normalized database you have just to change in one place and it will automatically be changed (without to have to do it) everywhere, where the reference is used.

nimander99 · June 2016

MornaBaine wrote: »

The new hairstyles are pretty uniformly awful. I'll only be using ONE of the new one each for male and female and they are really only "meh" not anything special. Here's some of what you get to look forward to.

I'm gonna name em.

1 Asian Emo

2 Samurai

3 No man should ever have this much hair in one place on his body

4 Asian Emo 1.0

5 Celtic Warrior

acw37162 · June 2016

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs. [/quote

Well please feel free to go enjoy "good" MMO's.

starkerealm · June 2016

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Correct. MMOs that didn't fail and have to go buy-to-play + rely on a predatory mobile-phone game or League of Legends-like payment model to poach every nickle and dime they can WHILE still offering a subscription (even if it is optional).

So, you're saying ZOS should return to a subscription-only model so we can have these sorts of things at no additional cost?

Tangentially Related: I don't think ZOS's decision to go subscription optional had anything to do with the game "failing". I think they realized that a huge population of Elder Scrolls fans were fans of the single-player games which don't require subscriptions and it was hard convincing them to subscribe; so by going subscription optional, they were able to scoop up a bigger chunk of the fan base. You don't have to fail to want more.

It wasn't even that. It came back to Microsoft being unwilling to wave the XBL sub fee for the console release while also demanding a hefty chunk of the sub fees. So ZoS was looking at charging (effectively) $20 a month in subscription fees for the XB1 crowd, while only taking in a fraction of that. Because it's a multiplatform release, they needed to keep their pricing policies somewhat unified across all platforms, so suddenly the go Subscription optional at the same time they finally nail down the release date for consoles.

But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

ShedsHisTail · June 2016

starkerealm wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Correct. MMOs that didn't fail and have to go buy-to-play + rely on a predatory mobile-phone game or League of Legends-like payment model to poach every nickle and dime they can WHILE still offering a subscription (even if it is optional).

So, you're saying ZOS should return to a subscription-only model so we can have these sorts of things at no additional cost?

Tangentially Related: I don't think ZOS's decision to go subscription optional had anything to do with the game "failing". I think they realized that a huge population of Elder Scrolls fans were fans of the single-player games which don't require subscriptions and it was hard convincing them to subscribe; so by going subscription optional, they were able to scoop up a bigger chunk of the fan base. You don't have to fail to want more.

It wasn't even that. It came back to Microsoft being unwilling to wave the XBL sub fee for the console release while also demanding a hefty chunk of the sub fees. So ZoS was looking at charging (effectively) $20 a month in subscription fees for the XB1 crowd, while only taking in a fraction of that. Because it's a multiplatform release, they needed to keep their pricing policies somewhat unified across all platforms, so suddenly the go Subscription optional at the same time they finally nail down the release date for consoles.

But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

I suspect there were many motivations...
I'm just saying I don't think "failure" was one of them.

GCypher87 · June 2016

wrong thread

ADarklore · June 2016

ZOS makes absolutely NO MONEY from 'in-game gold' transactions... so why would they offer it as an option?!? They need to MAKE REAL MONEY to keep the game going, pay for fixes, system upgrades, pay employees, future content, etc... they certainly can't pay for all those things with your in-game gold.

Nyghthowler · June 2016

I don't agree with it, but paying for the new hair, body markings, piercings.....whatever, does pay the bills.
But since the characters don't usually look like what they were supposed to in the creation screen, we should be able to go back and edit the basic customizations for free, or at least with gold.

Edited for typo

Kalifas · June 2016

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS makes absolutely NO MONEY from 'in-game gold' transactions... so why would they offer it as an option?!? They need to MAKE REAL MONEY to keep the game going, pay for fixes, system upgrades, pay employees, future content, etc... they certainly can't pay for all those things with your in-game gold.

Yeah they can. Just make the game subscription only again and then everything can be earned in game instead of a shop with no immersion. I might subscribe more often if the full game was more accessible and I didn't have to do cartwheels to get at all the features.

Lysette · June 2016

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Correct. MMOs that didn't fail and have to go buy-to-play + rely on a predatory mobile-phone game or League of Legends-like payment model to poach every nickle and dime they can WHILE still offering a subscription (even if it is optional).

So, you're saying ZOS should return to a subscription-only model so we can have these sorts of things at no additional cost?

Tangentially Related: I don't think ZOS's decision to go subscription optional had anything to do with the game "failing". I think they realized that a huge population of Elder Scrolls fans were fans of the single-player games which don't require subscriptions and it was hard convincing them to subscribe; so by going subscription optional, they were able to scoop up a bigger chunk of the fan base. You don't have to fail to want more.

It wasn't even that. It came back to Microsoft being unwilling to wave the XBL sub fee for the console release while also demanding a hefty chunk of the sub fees. So ZoS was looking at charging (effectively) $20 a month in subscription fees for the XB1 crowd, while only taking in a fraction of that. Because it's a multiplatform release, they needed to keep their pricing policies somewhat unified across all platforms, so suddenly the go Subscription optional at the same time they finally nail down the release date for consoles.

But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

I suspect there were many motivations...
I'm just saying I don't think "failure" was one of them.

Then why did the management change - management change is pretty much always a sign of failure.

rootimus · June 2016

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS makes absolutely NO MONEY from 'in-game gold' transactions... so why would they offer it as an option?!? They need to MAKE REAL MONEY to keep the game going, pay for fixes, system upgrades, pay employees, future content, etc... they certainly can't pay for all those things with your in-game gold.

The don't make money from the in-game gold transactions themselves. That doesn't mean that a game that has lots of quality content won't cause more people to buy the game, not does it mean that a percentage of those people won't subscribe. Of course, that's kinda the problem, isn't it? Zenimax seem to be focused on how much money they can squeeze out of people in the short term, rather than on growing an excellent product that could last for 10-20 years.

GCypher87 · June 2016

rootimus wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS makes absolutely NO MONEY from 'in-game gold' transactions... so why would they offer it as an option?!? They need to MAKE REAL MONEY to keep the game going, pay for fixes, system upgrades, pay employees, future content, etc... they certainly can't pay for all those things with your in-game gold.

The don't make money from the in-game gold transactions themselves. That doesn't mean that a game that has lots of quality content won't cause more people to buy the game, not does it mean that a percentage of those people won't subscribe. Of course, that's kinda the problem, isn't it? Zenimax seem to be focused on how much money they can squeeze out of people in the short term, rather than on growing an excellent product that could last for 10-20 years.

The product wont last 10-20 years if they aren't making money on it for 10-20 years

ShedsHisTail · June 2016

Lysette wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

Ravinsild wrote: »

acw37162 wrote: »

If you thought this feature was going to be for in game gold you are suffering from what clinical psychologists would call delusions.

Or you know, expectations set by the top competitors such as: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, World of Warcraft, and other actual good MMOs.

You mean games that require a subscription.

Correct. MMOs that didn't fail and have to go buy-to-play + rely on a predatory mobile-phone game or League of Legends-like payment model to poach every nickle and dime they can WHILE still offering a subscription (even if it is optional).

So, you're saying ZOS should return to a subscription-only model so we can have these sorts of things at no additional cost?

Tangentially Related: I don't think ZOS's decision to go subscription optional had anything to do with the game "failing". I think they realized that a huge population of Elder Scrolls fans were fans of the single-player games which don't require subscriptions and it was hard convincing them to subscribe; so by going subscription optional, they were able to scoop up a bigger chunk of the fan base. You don't have to fail to want more.

It wasn't even that. It came back to Microsoft being unwilling to wave the XBL sub fee for the console release while also demanding a hefty chunk of the sub fees. So ZoS was looking at charging (effectively) $20 a month in subscription fees for the XB1 crowd, while only taking in a fraction of that. Because it's a multiplatform release, they needed to keep their pricing policies somewhat unified across all platforms, so suddenly the go Subscription optional at the same time they finally nail down the release date for consoles.

But, I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

I suspect there were many motivations...
I'm just saying I don't think "failure" was one of them.

Then why did the management change - management change is pretty much always a sign of failure.

Not always, but I don't work for ZOS, so I couldn't say for sure what the turn over was about.

rootimus · June 2016

GCypher87 wrote: »

rootimus wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS makes absolutely NO MONEY from 'in-game gold' transactions... so why would they offer it as an option?!? They need to MAKE REAL MONEY to keep the game going, pay for fixes, system upgrades, pay employees, future content, etc... they certainly can't pay for all those things with your in-game gold.

The don't make money from the in-game gold transactions themselves. That doesn't mean that a game that has lots of quality content won't cause more people to buy the game, not does it mean that a percentage of those people won't subscribe. Of course, that's kinda the problem, isn't it? Zenimax seem to be focused on how much money they can squeeze out of people in the short term, rather than on growing an excellent product that could last for 10-20 years.

The product wont last 10-20 years if they aren't making money on it for 10-20 years

So you didn't read my post but agree with what I said. Good times...

Elvent · June 2016

I blame the F2P/B2P models all MMOs are doing. I remember everybody complaining about a monthly fee on these forums and not wanting to pay monthly well now you don't have too, you can play for free and buy stuff off the cash shop so Zenimax can keep the game running.

GCypher87 · June 2016

rootimus wrote: »

GCypher87 wrote: »

rootimus wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS makes absolutely NO MONEY from 'in-game gold' transactions... so why would they offer it as an option?!? They need to MAKE REAL MONEY to keep the game going, pay for fixes, system upgrades, pay employees, future content, etc... they certainly can't pay for all those things with your in-game gold.

The don't make money from the in-game gold transactions themselves. That doesn't mean that a game that has lots of quality content won't cause more people to buy the game, not does it mean that a percentage of those people won't subscribe. Of course, that's kinda the problem, isn't it? Zenimax seem to be focused on how much money they can squeeze out of people in the short term, rather than on growing an excellent product that could last for 10-20 years.

The product wont last 10-20 years if they aren't making money on it for 10-20 years

So you didn't read my post but agree with what I said. Good times...

Sorry, your wording was confusing. I read it as people wont subscribe and that the game wasnt a quality game. Also that they just wanted money now and were concerned with the long term. After rereading and fixing things in my head I understand better. Whoops.

MrDenimChicken · June 2016

I don't play this game anymore, but I was intrigued by some of the new stuff they have put in. Sadly, just to experience some of this new stuff (which I believe makes this game go from bad/mediocre to okay) costs so much money relative to other games.

This company just reeks of all too transparent greed. The fact that I expect changing your hair style/color to cost $20 speaks to my irritation, yet this expectation is not unreasonable to assume given their history of ridiculous crown prices for things that aren't even all that impressive (some of these costumes are just pathetic looking) or things you wish were already in the game.